About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
fighting a civil rights and virginia. we have a state where they want to go backward. the federal government can do a great job intervening in the delivery of recovery support services. meaning the federal dollars -- to me it would make sense to make them spend a small portion on recovery support services, to include housing. housing is a critical element in recovery. i guess my thought process goes -- somehow forced the state to discriminate against recovery, like they do in virginia, to spend some of the federal dollars on the offensive recovery support services. that is the nature of my thought process. by doing so, we can really reduce --, help recovery. to block out recovery people -- it is just insane to me. the state is not going to change. but the federal government if you just make a rule or regulation, you have got to spend a small amount of recovery and stop blowing it to agencies and virginia. i would be glad to elaborate after the press conference, of course. but that is the general thought and presidents. -- precedence. >> we have some programs that are specific arou
." this is a very old statute enacted by the first congress. it has sat dormant for 170 years. in some civil right type folks picked it up. -- been some civil right type folks picked it up and started bringing cases in which the plaintiff is foreign. the defendant is foreign. the tour took place in some foreign place. they say you have jurisdiction over this. courts have been going for this. they have been allowing some of these cases to go forward. this case raised the question of the of -- in this particular case, it took place in nigeria. the guy says the nigerian government committed these against me. they mistreated me. these foreign will company's work implicit -- foreign companies were implicit. so i am wanting to sue the oil companies in federal court. the defendant say this is not apply to corporations. he cannot actually sue a corporation under the statute. that was their claim. they did something very unusual. they actually said we want to consider a broader question. we would like you to brief not just this question of does it apply to corporations, but also doesn't apply extraterritor
know, he gets a lot of grief on civil rights. and it's true he did not use the bully pulpit. he could have done a better job on that. but he was a subtle guy. he desegregated d.c. when people weren't watching. he desegrated the armed wt tr. appointed all the federal judges that desegregated the south. he believed in moving, as john was saying, with a hidden hand. that's true on civil rights as well. he's been unfairly criticized for being weak on civil rights. he was not as strong as he could havebeen, but he did ts poant. w >> let's talk, presidential historian, jon meacham, who has a book coming out after the election that's forthcoming. "thomas jefferson, t.j." ike, a good president? a ar great president? or a great president? think that he -- one of the things we haven't talked about on the domestic side is he ratified what franklin roosevelt and harry truman had done in that he could have created --n 1952, 3,it cle,think, and check me on this, evan, was such that if he had been really intent on rolling back the new deal and the fair deal, it would ve been a huge fight and would h
to debunk a false -- debunk false claims. i think "the weekly standard" would agree. when we look at civil rights, it should be not about the quality of results. -- it might reflect that there is a republican primary going on, or it might reflect the fact that they are feeling the same journalistic standards. -- they are failing the same journalistic standards. i think this varies over time. that is just a false logic. i do not know that it is 3 to 1, and i do not know the time you're talking about. some of that is republicans criticizing other republicans. it is certainly not three to one on our side. other questions? we have two here, if we can get the microphone over to the table in front of the cameras. i am keeping her hopping here. >> i am michael, and given what we have just heard about people choosing to believe their side or their candidate or their team of people that believe they are objective journalists, and i count myself among them, and i do not believe that many voters believe that being a liar is a disqualifying traits. what are you guys seeing? what can happen on the grou
. and a party that i believe jennifer, wants to dismantle all of the civilized and advances of our time. i'm serious, from women's rights to gay rights to economic social to social security to medicare. in this one case, let us call out republicans, where do you stand, scott brown, for example? where do you stand? >> jennifer: i'm curious to know what you think about this. i think that this race is less about mitt romney -- yes, mitt romney is a terrible candidate. he's got all of his own problems including this sort of privilege bubble he's lived in this and apparently not gotten outside of. put that aside i think the problem is the republican party. and their continual push to the right. off of the edge of the flat earth. i'm wondering if you think that's why the polls are now starting to solidify because they feel like that party is not going to be responding to the needs of every day people. >> i do. it begins with mitt romney. the fish rots from the top. but i do think that people in their gut are feeling that this is a part
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)